James RiverChlorophyll Study

In Response ToChesapeake Bay TMDL

Basis for Chlorophyll a Criteria –Summary of 2005 process

VA Implementation Since 2005 Impact of EPA’s TMDL AllocationsVA WIP/Bay TMDL ProcessCurrent Status

2

10/15

15/2212/10

15/23 James is eutrophic High chlorophyll levels High and increasing levels of undesirable species Unbalanced community composition Algal blooms James listed as impaired under CWA § 303 Dissolved oxygen or water clarity criteria not driving

nutrient reductions

Existing Before 2005 Designated Uses - 9 VAC 25-260-10

“...balanced, indigenous population of aquatic life...”

General Criteria - 9 VAC 25-260-20“...undesirable or nuisance aquatic plant life...”

Nutrient Enriched Waters - 9 VAC 25-260-330 “...undesirable growths of aquatic plant life in surface waters...”

Adopted in 2005 for All Bay Waters Narrative chlorophyll a criterion - 9 VAC 25-260-185

“concentrations of chlorophyll a shall not exceed levels… undesirable… unsuitable… ecologically undesirable water conditions…”

Balance = Phytoplankton Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), Diversity Indices

Undesirable or nuisance aquatic plant life... = HAB, food quality issues

Natural characteristics Attainability

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

TF5.5 RET5.2 LE5.5

James River Phytoplankton IBI Scores

1984 - 2002 Spring & Summer

GoodFair-GoodFairPoor-FairPoor

Alternative Loading Scenarios Levels of chlorophyllAttainabilityEnvironmental Benefits

Chlorophyll-a Achievement Based on 10_year CFDSummer Low er Tidal Fresh James River

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

TN(million pounds)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Chl

-a (u

g/L)

JMSTF1 20 ug/L 25 mg/L

Staff recommended adjustments to four of the ten criteria

Criteria will lead to improved water qualityMove toward better ‘balance’ Protect from harmful algal blooms Believe to be attainable

Environmental – must have numerical criteria; prefer the originally proposed criteria or close to the original criteria; no more delays.

Citizens – reflect environmental comments. Regulated – concerns with scientific basis of

criteria particularly in lower James; prefers upward adjustments of criteria; cost too high; benefits not clear or measurable.

There is a need to set numerical criteria in the tidal James River.

Setting chlorophyll criteria is not as quantitatively precise as the dissolved oxygen or water quality recommendations.

Attainability can be used to focus in on a criterion value that will remain protective of designated uses based on the available scientific findings

10/15

15/2212/10

15/23

Non-point source actions taken based on Tributary Strategies

Point source actions based on nutrient caps adopted by the SWCB adopted in 2005 and included in the Watershed General Permit

Over $400 million expended for plant upgrades

13

Set nutrient load caps for all river basins throughout Bay watershed

EPA set cap for James basin much lower than VA had expected when EPA approved chlorophyll standard in 2005

Impact estimated to add $1-2 billion to nutrient reduction costs

VA conclusion: let’s make sure first

14

VA Phase I WIP – November 2010 Describe d VA concerns with allocations Outlined need for study of existing chlorophyll criteria

and review of modeling framework Presented staged implementation approach for point

source discharges in James Basin

EPA Agreed with approach Included Staged Implementation in Appendix X of

Chesapeake Bay TMDL – December 2010 Tacit recognition that VA is reviewing chlorophyll

criteria15

Staged Implementation VA Phase I WIP outlines nutrient reduction actions to

achieve TMDL Implementation 60% reduction target by 2017

Additional reductions scheduled after 2017 Phase III WIP

Scientific Study with Standards Adjustment Conduct 3-4 year additional scientific study to provide a

more precise and defensible basis for setting chlorophyll standard

Revise standard/TMDL by 2017, as appropriate16

Proposed revisions to Watershed General Permit for wastewater discharges conforms to Bay TMDL

Comment period ended July 22; presentation to State Water Control Board this fall

Revised Permit due to be effective January 1, 2012

17

Additional scientific study to provide a more precise and defensible basis for setting final nutrient allocations

DEQ contracted with VCU to assist in managing study and Science Advisory Panel; first meeting –August 22

Designing future data collection efforts Working to complete detailed work plan for study Initiating Rulemaking process – to help ensure

schedule is achieved; NOIRA under Executive Review; plan to set up Regulatory Advisory Panel

18

19